Axe Blow During Sudden Quarrel Falls Under Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC, Not Murder: Orissa High Court Modifies Conviction To Culpable Homicide

"The assault was not pre-planned but arose suddenly in the heat of the moment — the case squarely falls under Exception 4", Orissa High Court on March 19, 2026 partly allowed a criminal appeal, modifying the conviction of the principal accused from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, while acquitting two co-accused whose names were conspicuously absent from the FIR and first statement of the informant.

A Division Bench of Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that the existence of a counter-case, the injury sustained by the accused himself, and the absence of any pre-planned motive brought the case squarely within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

On January 27, 1999, a dispute erupted in village Nuasolabandha, Cuttack over stone-pelting at the informant's house the previous night. During the altercation the next morning, accused Prafulla Kumar Dehury rushed at the deceased with an axe and struck him on the head. The deceased succumbed to the injury after being referred to SCB Medical College, Cuttack. A counter-case was also registered the same day by the accused's side against the deceased. The trial court convicted all three appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.

Whether the offence fell under Section 302 IPC or Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC; whether the co-accused were rightly implicated given their names were absent from the FIR and first statement; whether the trial court correctly discarded the defence evidence; and whether the eyewitness status of PW-2 was credible.

PW-2's Eyewitness Status Rendered Doubtful by Spot Map

The Court examined the spot map — Exhibit 9 — which recorded all 14 house owners in the locality. The house of PW-2, who claimed to be brushing his teeth in front of his house at the time of the assault, did not appear anywhere in that map. The Court held his claimed presence at the scene doubtful and declined to treat his testimony as that of an eyewitness. "His statement that he was brushing his teeth in front of his house becomes doubtful and his house being 15 to 20 cubits away from where the deceased was assaulted also becomes doubtful."

Tangia vs. Farsa Discrepancy — Not Material

The witnesses referred to a Tangia as the weapon used, while the item sent for medical examination was described as a Farsa. The Court noted that the doctor described the weapon in Exhibit 4 as "Tangia (Farsa)" and the IO also described the material object as Tangia in the seizure list. Both Tangia and Farsa being sharp cutting weapons, the Court found the discrepancy insufficient to discredit the prosecution's case of assault by a sharp cutting weapon.

Trial Court Erred in Discarding Defence Evidence on Surmises

The trial court had brushed aside the counter-case and the injury sustained by accused Prafulla by speculating that the counter-case was lodged merely to "save their skin." The Court found this reasoning untenable. Defence evidence, the Court reiterated, is to be appreciated on the principle of preponderance of probability — not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The only question is whether a plausible defence has been made out. The counter-case lodged by the accused's side against the deceased on the same day, combined with the IO's admission that Prafulla was referred to SCB Medical College with injuries and that the injury certificate was never collected, ought to have been given due weight. "The trial Court committed manifest error in not placing due importance on the evidence relating to the counter case wherein accused Prafulla was also injured."

Omission of Co-Accused Names from FIR — Fatal to Their Implication

The informant's written FIR and his Section 161 statement recorded the very next day named only Prafulla as the assailant. The names of accused Pratap and Pankaj were entirely absent. It was only in court that the informant improved upon his version to implicate them. The IO admitted this omission in cross-examination. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P., the Court held that omission of important facts affecting the probabilities of the case is relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. In a mutual quarrel case with a counter-case on record, the Court found no cogent explanation for the initial omission. "In the absence of a cogent explanation being offered regarding the omission to name all the accused persons at the first instance, their subsequent implication becomes doubtful and difficult to accept."

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC Applies — Conviction Modified

Turning to the principal question, the Court found that the genesis of the dispute lay in the previous night's stone-pelting incident. There was no evidence of prior ill-will between Prafulla and the deceased. The assault arose suddenly during an altercation and was not pre-planned. Prafulla himself had sustained injuries, lending weight to the mutual assault theory. The Court convicted him under Section 304 Part I IPC instead and sentenced him to 7 years rigorous imprisonment with set-off, noting the incident occurred 26 years ago and arose from a mutual assault. "We are unable to persuade ourselves to treat the act of accused Prafulla as murder — it would be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC."

Date of Decision: March 19, 2026